 |
 | 
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/7/2004 12:24 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
Ex. 32:9-10
The Lord sid to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people. Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation."
Ex. 32:14
So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He hadsaid He would do to His people.
The same word for changed His mind are also translated "repented". There were no conditions. Just God saying that He would do something: destroy the people and make Moses a great nation. He didn't do what He said. He changed His mind.
His crystal ball must have been cloudy. Haven't you watched the Wizard of Oz? The crystal ball has clouds floating in it that may obscure the future.
Wait, you want the standard calvinist answer, right?
 God wasn't going to destroy them, He just told Moses that.
 So God told Moses a lie?
God uses evil to accomplish good.
Would Satan, in order to oppose God, then do good?
Yes.
So if God is doing evil and Satan is doing good, haven't we redefined those terms?
Who are you, oh worm, to question the living God!?!?!?!?!?!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/7/2004 12:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
The Lord sid to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people. Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation."
The same word for changed His mind are also translated "repented". There were no conditions. Just God saying that He would do something: destroy the people and make Moses a great nation. He didn't do what He said. He changed His mind.
There was a condition! "Now leave me alone," implying that if Moses did not leave God alone, then the destruction might be averted.
So God did not lie to Moses.
Nor does using evil to accomplish good mean that you could frustrate God's purpose by doing good.
"If all I do to try and destroy the bridge you are building only makes the work go faster, I will try and build on the bridge instead."
That would be great! If God can accomplish his purpose when he is opposed, I think it's easier to see how God's purpose could be accomplished if good is done instead. The first part's the difficult part, the second is not so difficult...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/7/2004 12:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee:quote:
There was a condition! "Now leave me alone," implying that if Moses did not leave God alone, then the destruction might be averted.
"Leave me alone" is not a condition. It's an imperative! LOL
Lee, what is your native language?
http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/bcg/lec07.html | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 8/7/2004 1:29 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"Leave me alone" is not a condition. It's an imperative! LOL ]
So what if it is an imperative Sis? I fail to see your point. I think we need to understand that God will with some things do things his children desire which by himself he wouldn't have necessarily would have done. An example God didn't want Israel to have a king but the people wanted one....he granted them their wish.... 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 8/7/2004 4:16 PM (GMT -6) | | How about this one...
"And you were DEAD in your tresspasses and sins, in which you formly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience..." Eph 2
"For HE RESCUED US (monergism) from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." Col 1
"Those controled by the sinful nature CANNOT please God, they are not subjected to God's law NOR CAN THEY BE..." Rom 8
"Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change mind..." 1 Sam 15
Give up your vain philosophies. It's not about us, it's all about Christ, about His work, His redemption, His bride, Himself. We should more eagerly strive to see God and to see man (ourselves) as the Word tells us we are, hopeless, evil, corrupt, sinful, wretched human beings, depraved, and wicked. And yet the glorious truth of the Gospel that Christ came to bring many sons to glory, to save sinners, to redeem for Himself a Bride.
With all respect,
Borg
1 Cor. 10:31
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/8/2004 11:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Lee: But Moses understood it conditionally, because he disobeyed! And God responded...
Jeff: But if he understood it conditionally, he wasn't disobeying, was he?
I agree! I meant that sort of tongue-in-cheek.
quote:
Ex. 32:14 So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He had said He might do to His people.
Sahid: You don't have to guess at what God really meant. Verse 14 tells you.
Some translations have "the Lord relented," i.e. he changed his response, because Moses did not leave God alone, and prayed. And averting the judgment was part of God's plan:
Deuteronomy 10:10 Now I had stayed on the mountain forty days and nights, as I did the first time, and the Lord listened to me at this time also. It was not his will to destroy you.
The Lord listened to Moses, because it was not God's plan to destroy them, thus we may conclude that Moses' prayer was also part of God's plan.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mark C.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 8/8/2004 1:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Are there not many places in Scripture where God engages with His saints as way of fellowship and relationship? God seems to have intended the creation of man for special fellowship for His own good pleasure. Ask any maturing Christian how they work with God in prayer! Read the bios of Christians down through the ages and you will note one interesting aspect of their prayer lives--they had intense dealings with God. Not "dealings" as compromise, but as God having real fellowship with man and man with God, and as Jesus says concerning the desciples, "I have called you friends..." (Jn.15:15).
I have to sometimes doubt--rightly or wrongly--the relationship between some of the posters here with their God. Forgive me if I seem too judgmental, this is an observation based on limited evidence. How is your prayer life with God? Conversing with God on modern present-day issues and problems are just as trans-active as those of old. There is a real conversation and working out of things in prayer--just as real as in Abraham’s case, and Moses', and Daniel's, and on and on. I know some here do have such an ongoing experience of communion with God, intense and vigorous. Yet, some seem to know God only academically. If one has experienced struggles in prayer for an answer by God, they will appreciate those passages where God communes with man, and man with God, and realize this is part of fellowship with HIM. Our relationship with God is not mechanical or rote, but an interactive participation with the living God and His purposes. Fellowship is what God made us for. Should we not then enjoy that communion and desire it? Maybe we don’t?!?
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/8/2004 4:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Mark C.
Are there not many places in Scripture where God engages with His saints as way of fellowship and relationship?
Yes. That's the belief of Open Theism.
That we're robots just following our programming is calvinism.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/20/2004 7:17 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Sahid: Of course it was God's will to not to destroy them, but it wasn't always His will. What translation has "relented". I don't know any Hebrew, so if anyone does, what does it mean?
The ESV, NIV, NKJV all have "relented" in Ex. 32:14. The word used is "nacham," which has more than one possible meaning. The choice here is apparently between "repented" and "relented," so I would say the choice should be determined by other Scripture, such as where Moses says "the Lord listened, it was not his will to destroy you," implying it was God's plan to save them, all the way through this incident, as in this similar verse:
2 Kings 13:23 But the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion and showed concern for them because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To this day he has been unwilling to destroy them or banish them from his presence.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/22/2004 12:30 AM (GMT -6) | | First of all, I do know the tiniest bit of Greek, and the NASB is usually the most accurate of the major translations, at least in the New Testament.
Now, what if some regular Joe said this? "I'm going to kill your extended family, because they are bad and it's the right thing to do." You say, "Please don't. It wouldn't look good. People wouldn't understand." He says, "You're right. I wont." Then some omniscient narrator who just so happens to be inspired by the Holy Spirit says, "So, Joe changed his mind."
This is what happened. It's very clear, "The Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people." Can we at least agree that God didn't do what He said He would do?
Finally, what is the difference between repent and relent?quote:
re·pent1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pnt)
v. re·pent·ed, re·pent·ing, re·pents
v. intr.
To feel remorse, contrition, or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do; be contrite.
To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it: repented of intemperate behavior.
To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins.
quote:
re·lent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-lnt)
v. re·lent·ed, re·lent·ing, re·lents
v. intr.
To become more lenient, compassionate, or forgiving. See Synonyms at yield.
v. tr. Obsolete
To cause to slacken or abate.
To cause to soften in attitude or temper.
First I would agrue that the feelings aspect of repent is a late addition. I guess relenting is a subset of repenting. Or maybe relenting refers to changing the intensity while repenting refers to changing direction. Either way God changed His mind. He said He would do something, but reconsidered after Moses objected, and it turned out that the Lord didn't do what He said He would do. quote:
Moses says "the Lord listened, it was not his will to destroy you," implying it was God's plan to save them, all the way through this incident, as in this similar verse:
2 Kings 13:23 But the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion and showed concern for them because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To this day he has been unwilling to destroy them or banish them from his presence.
These quotes show that God didn't destroy, but none of them say that God wasn't going to destroy them. They do not imply that "it was God's plan to save them, all the way through this incident". At least I don't see that implication. What about the "Lord listened" part? Why would what God heard have anything to do with God's will if He knew what He was planning to do all along?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/22/2004 10:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sahid,
quote:
"The Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people." Can we at least agree that God didn't do what He said He would do?
But God said "leave me alone, so that…" There was a stated condition, if Moses did not leave God alone, then the destruction might be averted. So it wasn't like God said "I will do X," Moses prayed, and then God said "I won't do X."
quote:
Finally, what is the difference between repent and relent?
re·pent1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pnt)
v. re·pent·ed, re·pent·ing, re·pents
v. intr.
To feel remorse, contrition, or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do; be contrite.
To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it: repented of intemperate behavior.
To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins.
I don't think any of this is what the OV holds God did, though! I hope it's not…
quote:
re·lent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-lnt)
v. re·lent·ed, re·lent·ing, re·lents
v. intr.
To become more lenient, compassionate, or forgiving. See Synonyms at yield.
v. tr. Obsolete
To cause to slacken or abate.
To cause to soften in attitude or temper.
Yes, I agree, this fits with what I am trying to say.
quote:
Either way God changed His mind. He said He would do something, but reconsidered after Moses objected, and it turned out that the Lord didn't do what He said He would do.
I don't think relent implies a change of mind, though. A more lenient response will do…
quote:
Lee: Moses says "the Lord listened, it was not his will to destroy you," implying it was God's plan to save them, all the way through this incident, as in this similar verse:
2 Kings 13:23 But the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion and showed concern for them because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To this day he has been unwilling to destroy them or banish them from his presence.
Sahid: These quotes show that God didn't destroy, but none of them say that God wasn't going to destroy them. They do not imply that "it was God's plan to save them, all the way through this incident".
But I think "unwilling to destroy them" does refer to intent, not just a past event, and thus a plan, and a plan not to destroy them.
quote:
What about the "Lord listened" part? Why would what God heard have anything to do with God's will if He knew what He was planning to do all along?
"He listened because…", I would say, part of God's plan was to involve Moses, and to respond to his prayer. That's what prayer is about, I believe, we get to participate…
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/22/2004 11:14 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
But I think "unwilling to destroy them" does refer to intent, not just a past event, and thus a plan, and a plan not to destroy them.
When was God "unwilling to destroy them"? If we start with the assumption that God does not change his mind, then of course we will conclude that it was his plan all along. But if we try to come at it with no assumption one way or the other and just take the Bible for waht it says, the most apparent meaning is that God was going to do one thing and then changed his mind. We are even told that God changed his mind. If his plan never changed, then his mind didn't change. The only way to think of God maintaining the same plan but yet changing his mind is to appeal to some idea of God that makes God incomprehensible, i.e. to exclude reason from discussion about God. If we just look at what it says, God decided to do something and then changed his mind. The "unwilling to destroy them" still makes sense, because God was unwilling to destroy them, that is after Moses objected. Before Moses' appeal, it seems like God was willing to destroy them. At least that's what God said.
As to the "let me alone" part, I still don't see a problem. If anything, it reaffirms the open interpretation. God himself recognized that Moses could change his mind. To hold that Moses had the ability to change God's mind does not require that God not recognize the possibility.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/23/2004 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sahid,
quote:
Lee: But I think "unwilling to destroy them" does refer to intent, not just a past event, and thus a plan, and a plan not to destroy them.
Sahid: When was God "unwilling to destroy them"?
"Up until now," at least until 2 Kings 13:23 was written.
quote:
We are even told that God changed his mind. If his plan never changed, then his mind didn't change.
Well, "changed his mind" is an English idiom, the Hebrew word is "nacham," which we have discussed, which can mean a change in response, and I think it does, here.
quote:
Before Moses' appeal, it seems like God was willing to destroy them. At least that's what God said.
I think "the Lord listened because" fits well here, too, I think it fits better, actually.
"The climax of this recital is Moses' declaration that the Lord listened to his plea on the Israelites' behalf (v. 10). It was not the Lord's will to destroy them." (Expositor's Bible Commentary)
quote:
As to the "let me alone" part, I still don't see a problem. If anything, it reaffirms the open interpretation. God himself recognized that Moses could change his mind.
But are you saying God saw this possibility, and did not include it in his plan? Or that he thought Moses would not respond, and had to change his plan when it turned out that Moses prayed?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
joneames
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 8/23/2004 11:29 PM (GMT -6) | | without going into detail:
wouldn't as sahid put it, ....
wouldn't this verse and many many others just be a total charade
if it doesn't just mean rather simply what it appears to mean?
Before Moses talked with him, God was willing to destroy, and in facy said leave me alone, I'm going to destroy them. Then Moses intereceses, and God is no longer willing. It would seem to me that the very obvious implications of this were that not only was the
destruction of the people NOT a settled matter to God or to Moses.
If (and I assume he did) Moses had a good understanding of God, then it seems to me that Moses was acting as if he wasn't living out a script, or as if .."well God's only saying that." but he doesn't really mean it." He seems to think that the destruction of the people is a possibility in both God's and his eyes. And this leads back to my question if it is not a genuine possibility (and not a settled matter) than why (from the determinist/classical standpoint) is this verse and others like it not a complete charade of meaninglesness.
I mean it's all about your perspective. I happen to think that the burden of proof is on the calvinist/determinist with verses like this. From all apearances and honesty this is a verse supporting an open view. Rather than having the calvinist/determinist make us prove openess in verses like these, isn't that their job? They need to somehow prove that the straightforward natural reading of this pasasge is not open but supports determinism. I mean explanations like "well God's relenting/repenting of the destruction was a planned response to a planned intercession (on Moses' part) There's no way of getting around this. If that is true, then at some point in this verse God is lying to us. He says "leave me alone, I'm going to go destroy these people, well if his relenting was a predetrmined settled matter, then he lied. He was not genuinely going to do anything. It was nothing but an empty threat. The determinist has to pull out all the ropes in order to get this to fit with their system.
But from the group that brought us "general call, saving call, general will, salvific will, primary causation, secondary casuation" it is no surprise . Ir's one long chain of extra biblical restraints being put on the very clear meaning of scrupture.
Jon | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/24/2004 4:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jon,
quote:
wouldn't this verse and many many others just be a total charade
if it doesn't just mean rather simply what it appears to mean?
Before Moses talked with him, God was willing to destroy, and in fact said leave me alone, I'm going to destroy them. Then Moses intercedes, and God is no longer willing. It would seem to me that the very obvious implications of this were that not only was the
destruction of the people NOT a settled matter to God or to Moses.
But then, again, are you all saying that God did not see this possibility of Moses praying? Surely not, for he said "leave me alone so that…"
But then we must conclude that God did not think that Moses would pray! And then when Moses did pray, the plan had to be abandoned. I think that is the more unreasonable view of this passage.
quote:
If (and I assume he did) Moses had a good understanding of God, then it seems to me that Moses was acting as if he wasn't living out a script, or as if .."well God's only saying that." but he doesn't really mean it.
I think the threat was from Moses' perspective, and Moses did not know God's plan. I think Moses states that it was not God's plan to destroy them all along, in Dt. 10:10!
quote:
He seems to think that the destruction of the people is a possibility in both God's and his eyes. And this leads back to my question if it is not a genuine possibility (and not a settled matter) than why (from the determinist/classical standpoint) is this verse and others like it not a complete charade of meaninglessness.
Well, I would say that God thinking Moses would not pray is pretty unbelievable. And such incidents are not meaningless!
John 6:6 He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.
quote:
They need to somehow prove that the straightforward natural reading of this passage is not open but supports determinism.
I think Dt. 10:10 says just that! And this verse, too:
2 Kings 13:23 But the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion and showed concern for them because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To this day he has been unwilling to destroy them or banish them from his presence.
That's pretty straightforward! The plain reading says "not to destroy them" has been his will, up to this time.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
joneames
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 8/25/2004 3:25 PM (GMT -6) | | But Lee,
My point was this:
In many other nations cases (as well as Israel) many times in the OT, we find verses where destruction is imminent. God says "I will destroy ___________" Then he changes his course of action. I can
see where you are coming from. I used the same methods to try to prove determinism in these types of passages when I was once a calvinist. But I'll tell you what is wrong with it.
This is what I came to see:
If God foresaw Moses's intereession as an inevitability, then the threat is still empty and it still renders the passage a total charade. It seems to me that this verse and others like it prove the
reality full of possibilites and that which is determined. I think that Moses' interecession (prayer) was a possibility to God, which is why he says let me alone. And is also why he states something in clear language "that my anger may burn on them."
If I was a parent and I knew every last one of my child's actions, and
I knew my kid would apologize and not recieve discipline, then my threat of discipline would be empty. And also, God never said He would wipe out Israel (he promised not to ever do that) it only says "that my anger may burn and I may destroy" all the while keeping Moses. I think that a very harsh discipline by GOd was very much a possibility in this case, and was not gone through with because Moses prayed, because Moses knew nothing was set in stone.
I think I remember you saying you were calvinist (so I take it a determinist also). I think that the only other remotely plausible view on this verse (though still weak) is a simple foreknowledge. I think this verse , if not undermining arminian phillosophy at least leaves determinism out of the question. If this is just a threat from Moses's perspective and not from God's then God is duplicious and deceptive (not to mention scitzophrenic). And remember I never said that God didn't forsee the possibility or probability of Moses praying. I never said God was like "well ok, I'll abandon that " God made mercy contigent on prayer, but that prayer (as seen in these passages) is very much a possibility and not a settled matter. And to
clarify, I think God's plan is general and not meticulous (ie. to send his son, redeem people, destroy satan etc..) Which all goes to show in my mind a genios chess player who can win through any number of routes, and does not need to see his opponets moves.
blessings
Jon | | Back to Top | | |
| 104 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:33 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|